Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. v. New York Racing Ass’n, et al.

S.D. Ohio

Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. v. New York Racing Ass’n, et al.

DecidedOctober 22, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00529

StatusUnknown

This text of Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. v. New York Racing Ass’n, et al. (Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. v. New York Racing Ass’n, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. v. New York Racing Ass’n, et al., (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

WELBY THOMAS COX, JR.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-529

v. Judge Michael R. Barrett

NEW YORK RACING ASS’N, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on October 2, 2025. (Doc. 14). Proper notice was given to Plaintiff (who proceeds pro se) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), including notice that he may forfeit rights on appeal if he failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner.1 United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). No objections have been filed to the R&R (Doc. 14) and the time to do so has passed. The Magistrate Judge aptly construed Plaintiff’s filing2—titled “Supplemental Clarification and Notice of Conflicts of Interest and Returned Mail”—as a motion to reconsider the Court’s Order3 dismissing his Complaint (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.4 And her analysis that reconsideration is not warranted is entirely correct. The undersigned thus

1 (Doc. 14 PAGEID 83).

2 (Doc. 13).

3 (Doc. 9).

4 It’s possible that Plaintiff’s filing is directed to the Court’s Order Striking Second Complaint (entered 09/10/2025). Either way, the result is the same. ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 14). Plaintiff’s “as construed” motion for reconsideration (Doc. 13) is, therefore, DENIED. This matter remains closed and terminated from the Court’s active docket. As a postscript, Plaintiff asks “permission” to appeal this Court’s decision denying reconsideration “to the 7th Circuit which is in my new home in Indiana.” (Doc. 13 PAGEID 79). At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not informed the Clerk of a new

address as is his obligation. See A Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants—Representing Yourself in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Part III. G.1, available at https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Pro%20Se%20Manual%20February%2 02017.pdf (last visited 10/21/2025). Regardless, Plaintiff cites no authority, and the undersigned is aware of none, that would allow any district court to grant this request. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 41 (number and composition of circuits). IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael R. Barrett Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

WELBY THOMAS COX, JR.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-529

v. Judge Michael R. Barrett

NEW YORK RACING ASS’N, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on October 2, 2025. (Doc. 14). Proper notice was given to Plaintiff (who proceeds pro se) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), including notice that he may forfeit rights on appeal if he failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner.1 United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). No objections have been filed to the R&R (Doc. 14) and the time to do so has passed. The Magistrate Judge aptly construed Plaintiff’s filing2—titled “Supplemental Clarification and Notice of Conflicts of Interest and Returned Mail”—as a motion to reconsider the Court’s Order3 dismissing his Complaint (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.4 And her analysis that reconsideration is not warranted is entirely correct. The undersigned thus

1 (Doc. 14 PAGEID 83).

2 (Doc. 13).

3 (Doc. 9).

4 It’s possible that Plaintiff’s filing is directed to the Court’s Order Striking Second Complaint (entered 09/10/2025). Either way, the result is the same. ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 14). Plaintiff’s “as construed” motion for reconsideration (Doc. 13) is, therefore, DENIED. This matter remains closed and terminated from the Court’s active docket. As a postscript, Plaintiff asks “permission” to appeal this Court’s decision denying reconsideration “to the 7th Circuit which is in my new home in Indiana.” (Doc. 13 PAGEID 79). At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not informed the Clerk of a new

address as is his obligation. See A Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants—Representing Yourself in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Part III. G.1, available at https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Pro%20Se%20Manual%20February%2 02017.pdf (last visited 10/21/2025). Regardless, Plaintiff cites no authority, and the undersigned is aware of none, that would allow any district court to grant this request. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 41 (number and composition of circuits). IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael R. Barrett Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Welby Thomas Cox, Jr. v. New York Racing Ass’n, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welby-thomas-cox-jr-v-new-york-racing-assn-et-al-ohsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack